Business still not ready for the Bribery Act ?
As many of you will know, the Bribery Act has already been delayed once by a number of months and been watered down. Whilst the Act may be primarily aimed at big business and business with an international presence, it is still important for all businesses to know about it and take proportionate steps to prevent bribery and corruption. Aside from the very heavy fines which can result from breach, business owners can be sent to prison and this is not based on being involved in possible bribery but simply for failing to prevent it.
A recent poll by respected information providers Thomson Reuters suggests that up to 40% of businesses are still unprepared. The Act will come into force on 1st July, so time to do something is running short.
Posted June 26th, 2011 in Uncategorized |
Trading standards and austerity cuts
Consumers ought to be aware that Trading Standards are unlikely to be able to offer quite the same level of investigative service in the near future as the trading standards budget is the latest victim of the swingeing cuts to funding by the Government. Consumers will consequently need to be even more wary of who they buy goods and services from.
It seems that the budget for Trading Standards is to be reduced £247 million to £140 million across the 200 plus trading standards services offered. As with a number of the proposed cuts, including the budget for legal aid, opponents claim that these will be a false economy when considering the bigger picture of the country’s overall economic health and success. In terms of Trading standards, the national audit Office suggest that unfair and hard sell tactics may result in overall losses to the UK economy of over £6.5 billion per annum. If this is correct, maybe the opponents of the cuts do have a valid point ?
Posted June 22nd, 2011 in Uncategorized |
When a family is being housed, the provision of separate, self-cont
ained flats with no common living areas does not mean that accommodation had been made available such that the members of the applicant’s family could ‘reside together’ in the ordinary meaning of the phrase.
Posted May 19th, 2011 in General |
Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd., which became the first company to be convicted of corporate manslaughter (under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007) in February of this year, has lost an appeal against its conviction.
The company was convicted following the 2008 death of geologist, Alexander Wright, 27, who died when a trench he was working in collapsed.
Posted May 19th, 2011 in General |
Payment Protection Insurance (PPI), which was sold aggressively by many of the clearing banks during the debt boom
of the 1980s and 1990s, has led to large provisions being made for losses as the banks have abandoned attempts to fight mis-selling claims.
Thousands of customers w ere sold PPI policies, which undertook to cover loan repayments on lo an in the event that the borrower became unemployed or fell ill and was unable to make the repayments. The policies were extremely profitable for the banks because the claim rates were very low and the policy costs were high.
However, following widespread complaints and successful litigation, the banks have abandoned their struggle and have earmarked more than £5 billion to meet claims.
Posted May 19th, 2011 in Civil Litigation, General |
Keeping company records up to date is not always a top priority for the directors of smaller companies. However, failing to keep the shareholders’ register up to date can have a downside if a share transfer has occurred but the new owner’s name is not entered into the register of members.
The problem is that under the Companies Act 2006, except in very limited circumstances, the person shown as a member in the register of members is a member and a person not shown isn’t – until the register is rectified.
This can have practical effects such as making notices of meetings invalid, invalidating votes of shareholders and so on and can affect, as it did in a recent case in the Supreme Court, whether or not one retains the rights attaching to shares transferred for financial purposes into the names of nominees.
Contact us for advice on company secretarial and company law matters.
Posted May 17th, 2011 in General |
The number of businesses in the UK which are suffering from ‘significant’ or ‘critical’ financial problems on the first quarter of 2011 has risen to 186,000, according to a report by insolvency specialists Begbies Traynor. This is an increase of 26 per cent over the figure for the third quarter of 2010 and is 15 per cent more than the same quarter in 2010.
Another report shows a 4 per cent jump in the number of retail businesses at ‘high risk’ of insolvency and there has also been a 15 per cent increase in the number of retails using company voluntary arrangements compared with 2010.A
report by accountants PwC also revealed an increase of more than 12 per cent in corporate insolvencies with retailing the worst-hit sector.
Things are tough in retailing and the building industry was recently identified as having had a particularly bad winter.
For advice on managing your trade risk, contact us.
Posted May 16th, 2011 in General |
There has, since its inception, been a great deal of confusion regarding the ‘double Inheritance Tax (IHT) nil rate band’ legislation – whereby the unused proportion of the IHT nil rate band of the first of a couple to die is passed to the second: this is termed the ‘transferable nil rate band’ (TRNB).
One of the problems stems from those cases in which the estate of the first deceased merely passed across to their spouse and the formal documentation relating to the estate was either not prepared or not retained.
HM Revenue and Customs have attempted to make the use of the TRNB simpler by issuing a new code of practice which allows an estate making use of a transferred TRNB to be an ‘excepted estate’ provided certain conditions are met.
In practice, this will simplify the administration of many estates. However, there are still conditions which may cause difficulties for many people, such as the conditions that the first deceased must have:
-
been domiciled for IHT purposes in the UK at the date of death; and
-
not have owned foreign assets (i.e. a holiday home) worth more than £100,000 at the date of death.
The guidance can be found at
Posted May 13th, 2011 in General |
Not many prosecutions are brought under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which are designed to protect consumers form the activities of unscrupulous traders.
Recently several companies were taken to court by the Office of Fair Trading for breaches of the regulations.
One of the companies offered invitations to claim ‘prizes’ by sending unsolicited letters to people. The ‘prizes’ which were the subject of the prosecution were either an LCD TV (allocated to less than 1 per cent of the applicants) or a ‘Zurich watch’ which was allocated to more than 99 per cent of the respondents. The Zurich watch actually contained a movement made in Japan.
To obtain the prize, it was necessary to obtain a ‘prize code’. This was done by the ‘prize’ recipient telephoning a premium-rate number – which cost £8.95. They then had to send a further £8.50 because the watch was an ‘electrical item’. The total cost to the consumer was therefore £17.45 and the supplier made a profit of approximately £7 on each ‘prize’.
The court concluded that there was in reality, no prize: the claimant had bought the watch.
In each case, the OFT found that the Regulations had been breached and that the ‘prize’ element of the promotion was a sham.
There are many unscrupulous traders in the market and promotions that offer ‘free prizes’ are seldom genuine. There are also examples of companies that target vulnerable people (i.e. the recently bereaved).
If something looks too good to be true, it is almost certainly because it is. Do not commit yourself without thinking through your options.
Posted May 12th, 2011 in General |
The laws against corrupt practice in the USA are both strong and pervasive, as a recent case illustrates.
It involved a London solicitor who is a US citizen and who was charged in the USA in connection with corrupt practices with regard to contracts worth more than £4 billion that had been awarded in Nigeria to a consortium represented by the solicitor. He paid bribes to high-ranking Nigerian officials between 1996 and 2004.
He fought extradition to the USA on the grounds that the time-lag between the offences and the case coming to trial prevented a fair trial and that the offences were too distant from the US for the courts there to have authority.
Despite that fact that only one of the member firms of the consortium was American, he was extradited to the USA and negotiated a plea bargain with the US authorities. This involved him agreeing to forfeit nearly $150 million.
He is scheduled for sentencing in June and could face a maximum prison sentence of five years for each of to two offences.
Posted May 12th, 2011 in General |
